Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Relationships with books

This is something that I feel is clearly understood but I'll just reiterate it just in case. There are at least two distinct relationships with a book - the author and the reader / critic. I know that Stephenson has come out saying that his books are not political but the reader may read politics into some of Cryptonomicon or the Baroque Cycle. Its an issue that I'll come back to at some point, I hope in some depth.

DIY?

I've just been reading Paul Gannon's great book, Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret, which is a readable and entertaining without deluging the reader in detail (whilst having the detail in the appendices). What I hadn't realised was how that Colossus was essentially a DIY project, that Bletchley Park engineers to some degree just didn't realise the strides that were about to be made. It reminds me of the data haven site in Cryptonomicon and the creation of the haven.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Eruditorium? Erudition? Root?

What has been bothering me is the way that we need to find ways of changing thinking. In John Gribbin's The Fellowship the writer brings out the seismic shifts of thinking that came about from Aristotelian thought to the Scientific Revolution and the scientific method. So what has this to do with the Baroque Cycle?

Simple. Stephenson uses the founding ofthe Royal Society almost as a way of articulating what thinkers and doers like Tim Berners-Lee have been doing with the Internet. The Royal Society and the letters that float around Europe are clearly analogous to the 1990s, also utilising the development of mercantile networks.

Perhaps one of the points of the Baroque Cycle is to try and explore how thinking changed and developed.

Intriguingly Stephenson has avoided the hyped, vaunted, played with Web 2.0 and has kept the same vision of a network about an online library of information, an infinitely extensible archive. He pretty much comes up with this in the long monologue that Leibniz has about his library idea. However it requires a radical change of thought to create, maintain this purity.

Stephenson is on record (on his website) as denying that he is a political writer and purely aims to recreate the psyches of people in the period with their paradigms. So he's not telling the reader how to think but does manage to explore how they think so this may influence the reader to consider their own position. Perhaps.